Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/08/598

M/S. K.C. AND ASSOCIATE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI. PRADEEP ZABAJI BORIWAR, AGE 40 YEARS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL D. SHUKLA

01 Aug 2011

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1 CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001

First Appeal No. A/08/598 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. CC/07/314 of District Nagpur)   1. M/S. K.C. AND ASSOCIATE THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI SANJAY PANDEY, R/O. 14, VIKAS ASHRAM LAYOUT, KARVE NAGAR, NAGPUR. NAGPUR Maharastra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI. PRADEEP ZABAJI BORIWAR, AGE 40 YEARS R/O. QTR. NO. D/2NEAR RAVI NAGAR, POST OFFICE, RAVINAGAR. NAGPUR NAGPUR Maharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER   HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER

PRESENT: None ......for the Appellant   Adv.Shashikant Borkar ......for the Respondent

ORDER   PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER   This appeal takes exception to the ex parte judgment and order dated 21/9/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpurin C.C.No.314/07.   This appeal is pending before admission since the month of July,2008. Ad interim stay was granted and notice before admission was issued to the Respondent Shri. Pradip Boriwar, who, in response to the notice appeared through Adv.More and Adv.Borkar on 11/9/2008 and then the matter was adjourned for hearing on condonation of delay as well as stay application. The record reveals that on 9th April,09, Mr.Shukla, Adv.for the appellant sought adjournment by making application in writing. The same application was resisted by the learned advocate appearing for the Respondent, but no order appears to have been passed by the commission. However, since after 9/4/2009, appellant as well as his advocate Shri.Shukla remained absent though the matterwas adjourned from time to time since 9/4/2009. Today also the appellant as well as his advocate Shri.Shukla are absent. Respondent Shri.Pradip Boriwar as well as his advocate Mr.Borkar are present. Adv.Borkar submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. The impugned order is ex-parte and there is already a delay of more than 10 months in preferring this appeal. On perusal of therecord, we find much force in the submission of Mr.Borkar, learned advocate for the Respondent. Hence we pass the following order.   ORDER   Appeal is rejected.   No order as to cost.

[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER   [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER   [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER